Suspect Witnesses?

[Wickerman]

. . . I'll tell you what was risky - not immediately releasing detailed descriptions of both of Schwartz's man as well as Lawende's man so the public could join in the hunt. Instead, everyone in London was turning in men who looked like Packer's fictitious clerk which not only could lead to nothing, but wasted vast amounts of police resources. . .

I'd like to ask you what you mean by this, above.
You say - "not immediately releasing detailed descriptions of Schwartz's man as well as Lawende's man".

Directly following the double murder, on the Monday 1st Oct. the Echo published this.


The police are of opinion that the same person murdered both these women.

THE MAN "WANTED."

The description of the man "wanted" by the police is: - Aged 30, 5ft. 5in., complexion fair, hair dark, full face; cap with peak, dark jacket and trousers, small brown mustache, stout build, and broad shoulders.

The above description is the man seen by Schwartz, the police assumed the same man murdered Eddowes.

The description of the suspect seen by PC Smith was also released, so I'm not sure what you mean by "not immediately releasing", it came out the following day.

[Wickerman]

Now if you would kindly answer my question; Was Wess aware of the 'Schwartz incident' when he spoke to the Echo reporter?

I realize you are not asking me, but isn't the question irrelevant if the Echo story told by Wess, was actually Diemschutz & Kozebrodski?

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm willing to entertain this possibility, more so if it can be associated with the "supposed accomplice" reference. However, it would have to be conceded that the plan failed - neither man ever came forward - and it might have been better to assume the innocence of at least Pipeman, and let him come forward as an innocent witness, as opposed to his portrayal in the press as knife wielding maniac.

Perhaps not immediately releasing detailed descriptions of those men was related to the perceived reliability of those witnesses?

Lawende was/is considered the man most likely to have seen the Ripper, so reliability was not a problem. Schwartz is a different matter. Come November 1888, he disappears from the memory of all investigators, including (apparently) the man who personally interrogated him - Abberline. We don't and can't know why this is. But at the time (October 1888), the reason the police kept mum about Schwartz's BS Man and Pipeman and Lawende's Sailor Man is that all constables were keeping an eye out for men such as this and they had hope of catching him/them. Only after weeks had passed without success did they release the descriptions to the press.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

It certainly is not proof of sequestration.
Hutchinson gave his statement to police, who also did not divulge his name, and Hutchinson was not sequestered.
His name only came out after he went to the press himself.

Also, not appearing at the inquest is not proof of sequestration, Lawende was both sequestered and, appeared at the inquest.
So your position fails on both counts.

I'm afraid it does not fail at all but underlines that two different polices forces in competition with each other over two murders committed on the same night sequestered their witnesses. Baxter was willing to comply with the wishes of Met Police whereas the City Police installed Henry Crawford into the inquest proceedings to control the flow of information in their favor. The result was that the most detailed descriptions failed to reach the people of London until some weeks later. This isn't coincidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lewis C]

James Brown: I am almost certain the deceased is the woman who spoke.

That was at about 12:50. There is no way that what Schwartz described could occur after that, if Mortimer is to see Goldstein traversing the street about 5 minutes later than Brown's walk home. So, you would have to place Schwartz/BS/Pipeman prior to Brown leaving home. That would mean BS is not the killer, so either Overcoat Man must be assumed to be the murderer, or another man will necessarily need to be conjured into existence.

I think that there are additional reasonable possibilities besides that one, but even in the scenario that you describe here, Schwartz and Brown could both have been right. Schwartz didn't say that BS man killed Stride.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I realize you are not asking me, but isn't the question irrelevant if the Echo story told by Wess, was actually Diemschutz & Kozebrodski?

If Wess had been so hopelessly confused as to suppose that the police search after 1pm was the murderer being pursued at about 12:45, then Philip Krantz had days to correct him, yet the Friday, Oct 5 edition of The Worker's Friend states:

The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.

Does it not seem to be the case that it was not Wess who was confused, but rather the anonymous members of the public he alludes to ...

... the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street ...

Spooner and lady friend were on Fairclough St at that time, and his testimony does not suggest confusion about what he witnessed.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think that there are additional reasonable possibilities besides that one, but even in the scenario that you describe here, Schwartz and Brown could both have been right. Schwartz didn't say that BS man killed Stride.

If James Brown is seeing Stride with a man at the board school wall at around 12:50, the situation is problematic regardless of the authenticity of Schwartz's account.

Kozebrodski: About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a large pool of blood. It was running down the gutter, and in the direction of the gate, and reached about to the door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards.

Ignore his timing and assume this is close to 1pm. How could Fanny Mortimer witness Leon Goldstein walking down Berner St and around the corner into Fairclough, yet neither of them sees anything suspicious? If Brown was correct, something is terribly wrong with our models.

Mortimer: It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the board school.

Note that Fanny does not say when this occurred, only that it was previously. When then, in relation to other events, did it occur? Perhaps it was when we normally suppose Israel Schwartz was on Berner St - around 12:45. Where then would we squeeze Schwartz in?